I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the PM's latest brain fart on indigenous Australians was not the product of a collegial and consultative meeting with his advisor on indigenous affairs.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
People laugh when I say I vote for the sex party but these are very good policies... and I agree they need a new name.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/12/fiona-patten-why-she-wants-to-find-a-new-name-for-the-australian-sex-party?CMP=soc_567
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/12/fiona-patten-why-she-wants-to-find-a-new-name-for-the-australian-sex-party?CMP=soc_567
Tommy H said:
I've voted for them a couple of times now. The only party I know of calling for an end to public funding of religious institutions and stricter charity rules.
So if I understand Shorten this morning correctly Abbott wants to give the billion dollar submarine contract to the Japanese without going through a proper tender process. When there are government organisations that require even $50,000 contracts to have a proper tender process. An unbelievable lack of governance and goes against his goal of creating jobs.
Another massive showing of what the Liberals do, and don't, give a stuff about... massive fail!
Great Barrier Reef: new report slams government's 'weak' recovery plan
Experts call for greater action on climate change, and warn that opening up huge new coalmines in Queensland could cause permanent damage to the reef
07 Oct 2005, Australia
Oliver Milman @olliemilman
The federal government’s plan to reverse the decline of the Great Barrier Reef is “weak” and requires greater action in six key areas, including climate change, according to a new report.
The set of recommendations, compiled by three of the reef’s most experienced scientists, warn that opening up huge new coalmines in Queensland is “too risky” for the Great Barrier Reef. They also say that it “will not be possible to develop and operate the largest coal ports in the world along the edge of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area over the next 60 years without causing permanent damage to the region”.
The report, published in Nature Climate Change, calls for a shift towards better conservation values, Australia playing a “more active role in transitioning away from fossil fuels” and advocates a bans on the dredging and dumping of seabed spoil within the world heritage area.
It also recommends a revamp of the environmental assessment process for new developments, greater powers for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over fishing and ports and a 50-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slash chemical run-off.
The federal and Queensland governments have devised a long-term plan to arrest the decline of the reef, which is considered to be in poor and worsening health having lost half of its coral cover over the past 30 years.
However, scientists have attacked the plan for failing to confront the issue of climate change, which is the leading long-term threat to the reef. The opening up of the Galilee Basin coalfields, to export resources via the reef, could result in the release of an additional 705m tonnes of greenhouse gases – more than Australia’s annual total.
Unesco’s world heritage committee will decide in June whether to list the reef as “in danger.” The Nature Climate Change report notes that more than half of the 41 outstanding universal values ascribed to the reef by Unesco are in decline due to pollution, coastal development, dredging, overfishing and climate change.
“We know what we need to do to help the reef, the problem is that the government’s plan is pretty weak,” said Jon Brodie, a marine scientist at James Cook University. Brodie authored the paper alongside Jon Day, a fellow former director at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and Terry Hughes, director of coral reef studies at James Cook University.
“The plan doesn’t address climate change at all, the water quality improvement part is better but it isn’t funded properly and the plan doesn’t set out good governance around ports, which is something Unesco wants.
“We can’t really stop exporting coking coal because we need to make steel. But we need to stop the expansion of thermal coal exports from the Galilee Basin.”
Brodie said the expansion of the Abbot Point coal port near Bowen, which has seen a lengthy battle over where to dump seabed excavated for the development, has been “a farce.”
“They had five options to expand the port and they picked the cheapest, dirtiest one,” he said. “And when enough people complained about dumping it at sea, they picked the next worst option, which was putting it in the wetlands. We are now on to another option.”
Day said that while ports could continue to operate next to the reef, all development needed to occur at a more sustainable level.
“If that means less dredging, less coalmining and more sustainable fishing, then that’s what Australia has to do,” he said. “Business as usual is not an option because the values for which the reef was listed as world heritage are already deteriorating, and will only get worse unless a change in policy occurs.”
Between them, the Australian and Queensland governments have pledged to ban the dumping of dredged spoil within the world heritage area and have set targets to reduce the amount of nitrogen and other chemicals flowing on to the reef from farming.
However, conservationists have said the funding for pollution reduction is insufficient and that even if the world keeps to an internationally agreed limit of a 2C increase in temperatures from pre-industrial times, ocean warming and acidification will further reduce coral cover to perilously low levels.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/06/coalition-plan-to-save-great-barrier-reef-is-weak-new-report-says?CMP=soc_567
Great Barrier Reef: new report slams government's 'weak' recovery plan
Experts call for greater action on climate change, and warn that opening up huge new coalmines in Queensland could cause permanent damage to the reef
07 Oct 2005, Australia
Oliver Milman @olliemilman
The federal government’s plan to reverse the decline of the Great Barrier Reef is “weak” and requires greater action in six key areas, including climate change, according to a new report.
The set of recommendations, compiled by three of the reef’s most experienced scientists, warn that opening up huge new coalmines in Queensland is “too risky” for the Great Barrier Reef. They also say that it “will not be possible to develop and operate the largest coal ports in the world along the edge of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area over the next 60 years without causing permanent damage to the region”.
The report, published in Nature Climate Change, calls for a shift towards better conservation values, Australia playing a “more active role in transitioning away from fossil fuels” and advocates a bans on the dredging and dumping of seabed spoil within the world heritage area.
It also recommends a revamp of the environmental assessment process for new developments, greater powers for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority over fishing and ports and a 50-year plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slash chemical run-off.
The federal and Queensland governments have devised a long-term plan to arrest the decline of the reef, which is considered to be in poor and worsening health having lost half of its coral cover over the past 30 years.
However, scientists have attacked the plan for failing to confront the issue of climate change, which is the leading long-term threat to the reef. The opening up of the Galilee Basin coalfields, to export resources via the reef, could result in the release of an additional 705m tonnes of greenhouse gases – more than Australia’s annual total.
Unesco’s world heritage committee will decide in June whether to list the reef as “in danger.” The Nature Climate Change report notes that more than half of the 41 outstanding universal values ascribed to the reef by Unesco are in decline due to pollution, coastal development, dredging, overfishing and climate change.
“We know what we need to do to help the reef, the problem is that the government’s plan is pretty weak,” said Jon Brodie, a marine scientist at James Cook University. Brodie authored the paper alongside Jon Day, a fellow former director at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and Terry Hughes, director of coral reef studies at James Cook University.
“The plan doesn’t address climate change at all, the water quality improvement part is better but it isn’t funded properly and the plan doesn’t set out good governance around ports, which is something Unesco wants.
“We can’t really stop exporting coking coal because we need to make steel. But we need to stop the expansion of thermal coal exports from the Galilee Basin.”
Brodie said the expansion of the Abbot Point coal port near Bowen, which has seen a lengthy battle over where to dump seabed excavated for the development, has been “a farce.”
“They had five options to expand the port and they picked the cheapest, dirtiest one,” he said. “And when enough people complained about dumping it at sea, they picked the next worst option, which was putting it in the wetlands. We are now on to another option.”
Day said that while ports could continue to operate next to the reef, all development needed to occur at a more sustainable level.
“If that means less dredging, less coalmining and more sustainable fishing, then that’s what Australia has to do,” he said. “Business as usual is not an option because the values for which the reef was listed as world heritage are already deteriorating, and will only get worse unless a change in policy occurs.”
Between them, the Australian and Queensland governments have pledged to ban the dumping of dredged spoil within the world heritage area and have set targets to reduce the amount of nitrogen and other chemicals flowing on to the reef from farming.
However, conservationists have said the funding for pollution reduction is insufficient and that even if the world keeps to an internationally agreed limit of a 2C increase in temperatures from pre-industrial times, ocean warming and acidification will further reduce coral cover to perilously low levels.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/apr/06/coalition-plan-to-save-great-barrier-reef-is-weak-new-report-says?CMP=soc_567
Superb account of the rise of IS.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html
scottyturnerscurse said:
Don't know anything about him but there were a few articles about how him coming in is going to be good for Abbott. Anyone know why?
I didn't think their last leader did a whole lot, but then, she did do more than Wet Fish Bill usually does.
K3 said:
The thinking is he's more interested in Social Policies than hard core Environment Policies.
But it's a stretch to say it's good for the Libs.
